Alternative: no edit requirement. It's unnecessary for a '''chat moderator''' RFR and makes it more complicated for capable candidates to apply. And there's certainly no justification for any number of mainspace edits to be implemented as a requirement to become CM.

<div class="quote">FortressOfNight wrote:
Alternative: no edit requirement. It's unnecessary for a chat moderator RFR and makes it more complicated for capable candidates to apply. And there's certainly no justification for any number of mainspace edits to be implemented as a requirement to become CM.</div> <p>^
</p>

<div class="quote">FortressOfNight wrote:
Alternative: no edit requirement. It's unnecessary for a chat moderator RFR and makes it more complicated for capable candidates to apply. And there's certainly no justification for any number of mainspace edits to be implemented as a requirement to become CM.</div> <p>Going off this, if someone is out of touch with the community, then that can be said in the comments/opposes in an RfR and the user can work on it thereafter. Usually edit requirements are in place to prevent trolls, but the community would never consciously allow a troll to get CM rights in a voting process. So I agree overall. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>FortressOfNight wrote: Alternative: no edit requirement. It's unnecessary for a chat moderator RFR and makes it more complicated for capable candidates to apply. And there's certainly no justification for any number of mainspace edits to be implemented as a requirement to become CM. </p> </div> <p>I do understand the reasoning and am not super opposed to the idea. I think having some edits on blogs and forums would help integrate someone into the community but I see that it's not completely necessary. </p>

<p>Edits mean experience, but mods don't moderate articles, they moderate <i>chat</i>. If they demonstrate proper behavior for a while in chat (2 months seems really short. I'm thinking at least 9 months, but obviously some exceptions can be made.), I think it should be OK. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>LondonDauntlessCorvair963 wrote: Edits mean experience, but mods don't moderate articles, they moderate <i>chat</i>. If they demonstrate proper behavior for a while in chat (2 months seems really short. I'm thinking at least 9 months, but obviously some exceptions can be made.), I think it should be OK. </p> </div> <p>9 months is kind of a long time, relatively speaking. I've had this account for a shorter time than that. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>LondonDauntlessCorvair963 wrote: Edits mean experience, but mods don't moderate articles, they moderate <i>chat</i>. If they demonstrate proper behavior for a while in chat (2 months seems really short. I'm thinking at least 9 months, but obviously some exceptions can be made.), I think it should be OK. </p> </div> <p>Hmmm. Extending the time and getting rid of the edits. I like that. maybe something like 4 or 6 months though and 2 or 3 months without a ban. </p>

<p>I'd say maybe 4-5 months </p>

<div class="quote">FortressOfNight wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>LondonDauntlessCorvair963 wrote: Edits mean experience, but mods don't moderate articles, they moderate <i>chat</i>. If they demonstrate proper behavior for a while in chat (2 months seems really short. I'm thinking at least 9 months, but obviously some exceptions can be made.), I think it should be OK. </p> </div>9 months is kind of a long time, relatively speaking. I've had this account for a shorter time than that. </div> <p>But you are the same person as BM, so that wouldn't count in my book. </p>